[Elianna]

I don't see that anyone was trying to say that it was a claim unless you're referring to me. I was just pointing out the relevant laws in the rulebook that I have, but that was as helpful as I felt like being.

If I were the director, I would have ruled as all seem to say: declarer can pick up her cards, all the more power to the defense. Declarer is also already probably shaken, and that gives them a huge advantage.

[blackshoe]

I've been doing this "what's the ruling" thing online for quite some time. Many times the ruling has seemed clear cut - and then I find out that the original poster left something out, or misstated the facts, or whatever, and now the ruling should be completely different. So I've stopped making assumptions about the facts of a case. If something is not clear to me, I'll question it. If y'all want to make assumptions, you go right ahead. If you want me to stop giving my opinion on rulings in these forums, I'll be happy to do that too. Plenty of other things to do.

[JoAnneM]

If the Director did anything other than allow declarer to pick up his cards he made a terrible ruling. Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

[FrancesHinden]

JoAnneM, on Nov 14 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

Why on earth would you consider that?
Not everyone knows the Laws off by heart. Perhaps they remembered a previous lead out of turn when declarer became dummy & vice versa, and thought that might apply here. They did exactly what they should do: an irregularity occurred, and they called the TD without doing anything else.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 14 2008, 04:18 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Nov 14 2008, 03:12 AM, said:

Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

Why on earth would you consider that?
Not everyone knows the Laws off by heart. Perhaps they remembered a previous lead out of turn when declarer became dummy & vice versa, and thought that might apply here. They did exactly what they should do: an irregularity occurred, and they called the TD without doing anything else.

Except for the "insisting that those cards remain on the table" part.

[blackshoe]

The laws say that when the director is called nobody should do anything else. That includes picking up those cards.

That said, I wouldn't insist the cards remain on the table. I'd simply inform the director that the player faced his hand and then picked it up, and let him deal with it. The danger in that is that the director will "forget" to deal with this second irregularity, but that's life.

OTOH, I wouldn't call insisting that players comply with the laws "extremely bad ethics". On the contrary, it's extremely good ethics. Perhaps too good.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 14 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

The laws say that when the director is called nobody should do anything else. That includes picking up those cards.

That said, I wouldn't insist the cards remain on the table. I'd simply inform the director that the player faced his hand and then picked it up, and let him deal with it. The danger in that is that the director will "forget" to deal with this second irregularity, but that's life.

OTOH, I wouldn't call insisting that players comply with the laws "extremely bad ethics". On the contrary, it's extremely good ethics. Perhaps too good.

Supposing a declarer 'knows' that he is allowed to pic his cards up if he has shown them to the opponents. Would you say the opponents can call the director just to give themselves an opportunity to stop him and stare at his hand? That certainly seems to violate the spirit of the laws...

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Nov 14 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

Supposing a declarer 'knows' that he is allowed to pic his cards up if he has shown them to the opponents.

Suppose he does. He's wrong.

Quote

Would you say the opponents can call the director just to give themselves an opportunity to stop him and stare at his hand?

No. I would say that facing his hand is an irregularity, and anyone can point that out, and that once it's pointed out, all four players at the table have an obligation to see that the director is called.

Quote

That certainly seems to violate the spirit of the laws...

Hm. Maybe. Which tenet of the spirit of the laws does it violate?

Here some seem to wish to impute questionable motives to a player's insistence on following the laws. Absent clear evidence of such motives, it seems to me that imputation violates the spirit of the laws.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 14 2008, 10:42 AM, said:

Here some seem to wish to impute questionable motives to a player's insistence on following the laws. Absent clear evidence of such motives, it seems to me that imputation violates the spirit of the laws.

Well that's completely wrong, 'guilty until proven innocent' is well established throughout the appeals process for example. I know that is not the wording in the laws, but it's the principle that is followed in practice.

I'm not saying asking declarer to leave his hand on the table is proof of questionable motives. I'm saying if someone has questionable motives, is that not an easy way to take advantage of them?

Please tell me why I am wrong that declarer can, at least prior to a director call, pick his hand back up if he shows it to his opponents.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Nov 14 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

Please tell me why I am wrong that declarer can, at least prior to a director call, pick his hand back up if he shows it to his opponents.

Law 9B says in part:

"2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge" said:

After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity

The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

[...]

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

If a defender exposed a card, there would be no question that it should be left exposed until the Director had been summoned - the defender would not be allowed to pick it up temporarily (in order, for example, to prevent declarer from remembering what it was). Why, then, should declarer's cards be treated differently?

Perhaps because:

"2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge" said:

Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card, and no card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

The question arises: is it illegal for declarer to show all her cards to the defenders? It is certainly irregular behaviour, but that is not what an "irregularity" means in the context of the Laws. I cannot find anything in the Laws that makes it illegal (and thus "irregular" in context) for declarer to show as many cards as she wants to as many defenders as she wants for as long as she wants; if that helps them, well and good, but having exercised such generosity she is not compelled to perpetuate it.

In short, declarer has (in effect) accidentally dropped all her cards face up on the table. This is not illegal, and there are no restrictions on a declarer who has so acted. In particular, there is no onus on declarer to leave the accidentally dropped cards on the table for a moment longer than she wishes.

Suppose a declarer dropped a card face up on the floor. Do you suppose that a defender has the legal right to insist that it remain there until he has seen and committed to memory its face? If not, why do some of you (blackshoe in particular) differentiate in this respect between the floor and the table?

[blackshoe]

I never "differentiated" between the floor and the table.

If your premise is that declarer has accidently dropped all her cards on the table, then your conclusion may well follow. However, that is not what was postulated in the original post. There, declarer deliberately exposed her cards. That she (apparently) mistakenly thought she was dummy makes the act no less deliberate. Your conclusion here does not follow from that.

[jdonn]

You are ignorring "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card." Also you are requiring everyone to read declarer's mind because they have to know if it was intentional or not.

[blackshoe]

Nonsense. The director's ruling, when he or she arrives at the table, will take into consideration that provision of Law 48A. It's not up to players to consider it at all. As for "reading declarer's mind", no. Players have no need to consider that question either.

Correct procedure when an irregularity has occurred is to leave the cards in the state they were in when the irregularity occurred until the director has made a ruling. Otherwise, the director has to waste time figuring out what actually was going on. All I'm saying is that it is not unethical to insist on correct procedure.

[jdonn]

Maybe I'm just honestly misunderstanding what you are saying. It seems you drew a distinction between declarer exposing his cards deliberately and accidentally (yes I know dburn drew that distinction, but you responded that the cases may be handled differently). So if declarer drops them accidentally, are you saying he can pick them up or that are you saying they should stay while director is called? I still don't understand differentiating between those cases anyway given the portion of the law I quoted in my last post.

It just seems to me your last two posts contradict each other.

[JoAnneM]

I think a "brain fart" is nothing more than an "accident".

Instead of unethical perhaps I should have used the word unsportmanlike. When a player drops a card on the floor don't you immediately avert your eyes so you won't see it? Why would you want to do the "unsportsmanslike" thing of staring at declarer's hand if he accidentely laid them on the table. Instead, avert your eyes while he quickly picks them up!

I love all the times in the Laws that the Directors are allowed to "deem". That makes him/her the Deemer.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Nov 16 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

It just seems to me your last two posts contradict each other.

In my last post I was addressing David's logic only. Sorry for the confusion.

Let me try to clarify my position:

When an irregularity occurs, the laws say that certain things should happen. In particular, while no one (with some exceptions) is required to call attention to an irregularity, most often, someone does. Once that happens, the next thing that should happen is that the director is called. All four players are responsible for this, but again, sometimes no one calls. However, if someone does call the TD, nothing else should happen until the director gets to the table and makes his ruling. It does not matter if one or more of the players at the table thinks he knows what the ruling should be, or even if he himself is a director (or, for that matter, an acknowledged authority on the laws, such as, say, the Chairman or a member of the WBF, ACBL or other Laws Committee/Commission, or the Chief TD of some NBO, Zonal Authority, or the WBF itself). The correct procedure is to call the TD and let him deal with the problem.

People do, however, frequently deviate from this ideal, for a variety of reasons. If the deviation causes no real problem, the TD is likely to ignore it, or mildly remind the player(s) of the correct procedure. This too can be a deviation from correct (directorial, in this case) procedure, particularly where the laws suggest a PP should be given (as when a player has failed to do something he "must" do). It's still going to happen. Some of us will say "Good! The Laws are too strict anyway!" Some of us will shrug our shoulders and say "Oh, well, that's life." Sometimes somebody will go on a rant about how he was cheated out of a good score, or the TD is an idiot, or whatever. Hopefully, however, not at the table, where such action should be considered "prejudicial to good order and discipline", as the military might put it.

I generally fall into the "Oh, well, that's life" group, but when someone asks me what ruling should be given, I'm going to tell him the whole truth. Well, except maybe for mentioning that people (including directors) do ignore the laws sometimes.

On the subject of people insisting on the letter of the law in some kind of unsportsmanlike attempt to "gain advantage", well, first, if the laws say that some information is to remain visible to the NOS until the TD makes his ruling, I don't see how insisting on it "gains advantage". On the contrary, allowing a deviation may well lose an advantage. Which is the "sportsmanlike" way to go is another question. Many players (including me) don't particularly want to win through insistence on the letter of the law, but that doesn't make those who do so insist necessarily unsportsmanlike or, more particularly, unethical. One has to be careful, as a player, though, how one handles these things. Law 74A2 is pretty broad.

[jdonn]

I just read that whole thing twice and I'm more unsure of your position than I was before. Oh well whatever.

[JoAnneM]

I think maybe it becomes a matter of Active Ethics on the part of the opponents that they make every effort not to gain advantage through an "accident".